• 4 Posts
  • 80 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 28th, 2022

help-circle



  • For the liberals in the walls : a party isn’t an opinion, or even an ideology. A party is an organisation that seek to hold power.

    Inside any party on earth there is divergence in ideologies, and all liberal parties under liberal democracy are expected to have an internal democracy. So if there is democracy and plurality inside of parties, why should there necessarily be multiple parties fighting for power?

    The building blocks of liberal democracy are justified by the same myth as the “free market” economics : that competition drive humanity to the best outcome in every domain. This is a capitalist lie. Politics are just like marketing, the more money you pour in the more you sell.

    If you want cooperation, why putting people against each other for power by having multiple organisations trying to get it? Why not putting people in responsibility according to the wisdom of the people that are inside one power organisation? Why not having people’s representation done by local elections to build an assembly of trusted people rather than marketed people?


  • French here, yeah everyone in Western Europe is looking at America like “wtf is this shit” on the subject of school shootings. We only have drills for fire, and sometimes local disaster risks like nuclear spillage in my hometown, but only of you were near a potential hazards yknow




  • lil_tank@lemmygrad.mltoMemes@lemmygrad.mlUSA #1
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m gonna be the annoying one here but according to the same source Cuba is one of the few countries above the US in incarceration rates (top 1 is El Salvador)

    Of course the difference is, Cuba is a small, initially underdeveloped, insular, under constant CIA aggression, and sanctionned as f, while the US is supposed to be the pinnacle of human development

    And most interestingly, look at how low China is, supposedly an authoritarian hell hole



  • lil_tank@lemmygrad.mltoGenZedong@lemmygrad.mlNext war is on China
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok so, Putin sponsoring Trump sounds … eh, at least there’s some kind of proximity in discourse

    But who the fuuuuuck do they think China is willing the burgerlanders to vote for??? The communist party??? There are two electorally viable parties and both are super anti-China. It just doesn’t make sense






  • Yeah clearly ChatGPT hallucinated a term that sounded logical because smashing designations together is something that frequently occurs. However in this precise case, the fusion of terms don’t work. The bot is unable to use the Marxist framework properly, revealing further that large language models are just that : models trained on large samples of language, that put words together because they look coherent when compared to the language sample.

    Class society has an infinitely complex structure that cannot be fully described, this is why we use dialectical materialism in opposition to vulgar materialism that finds itself unable to grasp individual contradiction within a general description of a complex system.

    Basically, the reduction that is the struggle between the owning and dispossessed classes is a useful way to describe a society where actually a lot of individuals operate in a grey area between actual labor and exploitation from relationship of ownership, in widely different manners



  • The word “terrorism” is clumsy imo.

    From a Marxist perspective, what the mainstream politicians call terrorism is called adventurism , ie, random acts of violence against random people. That’s the worst method of change ever it doesn’t work you can never get mass support like that.

    But when we talk “eco terrorism” we don’t literally mean suicide bombing on random people, it’s more in the form of radical direct action including violent tactics in opposition to pacifist direct action right?

    But if you’re gonna use “terror” I mean, you’re already on the path of Marxist revolution (“we’ll make no excuses for the terror”) as revolutionary violence consists in terrorising the reactionaries. The cool thing when you have a dictatorship of the proletariat is that your “terror” doesn’t have to randomly kill people in cruel ways, you can dismantle reactionary networks using intelligence and rely on imprisonment rather than murder.

    So I’d argue that the meaningful terminology is the following: either pacifist direct action, or radical direct action (more anarchist leaning) or revolutionary action (more Marxist leaning)